Fetch normalized Gymshark product details by product handle. Provide the URL slug to retrieve structured JSON for one Gymshark storefront item.
Get a Gymshark product. Returns normalized product detail for one Gymshark (https://row.gymshark.com) product handle. The storefront URL is fixed server-side; handle is the product's URL slug.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| handle | Yes | Product handle |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.16.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds genuinely useful context — the output is 'normalized,' the storefront URL is fixed server-side, and handle is the slug — but it does not state read-only semantics explicitly, error behavior for invalid handles, or what fields the normalized detail contains.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three tight sentences with the verb-resource summary front-loaded. Each sentence earns its place: the lead states the action, the second defines the output form, and the third clarifies parameter semantics. Slight repetition of 'Gymshark product' is a minor clarity aid, not waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: input semantics (slug), base URL scope (row.gymshark.com), and return type (normalized product detail). The gaps — no explicit differentiation from gymshark_products and no enumeration of the normalized fields — are minor given the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema's terse 'Product handle' by explaining that handle is the product's URL slug and that the base storefront URL is fixed server-side — this lets an agent correctly extract the handle from a product page URL.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb+resource ('Get a Gymshark product') and precisely defines scope: returns normalized product detail for exactly one product handle. The qualifier 'one ... handle' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling gymshark_products, and the embedded URL (row.gymshark.com) pins down the exact storefront.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The usage context is implied — call this when you have a single product URL slug and need its detail — but no alternatives are named and no exclusion conditions are given. Given the large sibling family (gymshark_products, gymshark_product_recommendations, gymshark_collection_products), explicit routing guidance would materially help an agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.